Intelligent or Smart?

I've often wondered about the intelligence of smart people.

For years, I've wondered why many of the people who are considered successful do not always appear intelligent or act intelligently proportional to their perceived success; yet, their success indicates that they are smart.  How can that be?  In (at least American) English vernacular, intelligent and smart are used interchangeably, as are unintelligent and stupid.

I began to see a distinction between the concepts, intelligent and smart, and conversely, unintelligent and stupid.  The reason for using the term, intelligence, is self-evident, indicating an objective quantification of an individual's intellectual faculty.  The words, stupid and smart, are natural choices, given common use and understanding, to indicate an individual's usage of given intelligence, low or high.  Other words for stupid, e.g. dim, thick, obtuse, can involve irrelevant connotations.

Further, intelligence is relatively lasting, given its biochemical source, barring the effects of aging or brain trauma, whereas stupidity and smartness can be fleeting, lasting for seconds or a lifetime.

That is not to say that successful (read smart) people cannot also be intelligent.  Carl Sagan, Oprah Winfrey, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and many others are/were intelligent and smart.  But, anyone who would argue that all successful people are necessarily, or by definition, highly intelligent would need to explain to me apparently successful people such as Donald Trump, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, any Kardashian, and many others.  Of course, some would further argue that those people are also intelligent, requiring the results of intelligence testing to be convincing.

Conversely, the concept does not imply that intelligent people are always smart.  An intelligent person can design and build a fully functional and innovative jet-powered skateboard and stupidly decide to immediately test its feasibility on a busy highway or over the Grand Canyon.

Intelligence is innate, relatively stable, objective, and measurable by proven and continually updated methods[1].  Smartness, like stupidity, is not innate but is the result of a conscious decision and is therefore subject to capriciousness.   Smartness/stupidity is subjective and not measurable by anyone's behavior which can change in an instant and is seldom, if ever, admitted or discovered for reasons implied below. 

Smartness and stupidity cannot be measured.  It cannot be quantified by tests or by bank accounts, for example, since bank balances are affected by inheritances, mistakes, and intelligent or unintelligent decisions.  However, smartness/stupidity can be judged, albeit without great accuracy, using success as an indicator.  There are several forms of success, e.g.  affluence, notoriety, power (pull, authority).  

If viewed philosophically, i.e. without moral judgment, there are many identifiable behaviors that can be used to gain success: deceit, lying, self-discipline, theft, manipulation, education, flamboyance, fraud, forgery, intimidation, tenacity, coercion, among others.  (See?  Not all those traits are, even in the non-philosophical sense, negative.)  The biggest difference between any two humans lies in what they are willing to do to get what they want.

I submit that using the words, intelligent and smart, or unintelligent and stupid, interchangeably serves only to confuse. The practice leads us to assume that, because someone is successful, regardless of their methods to achieve success, they are also intelligent enough to head corporations, serve in significant elected positions, or make momentous military decisions.

In the case of elected office, the more (financially) successful person can afford to spend vast sums on advertising and an entourage to maximize their chances of being elected.  Ultimately, their success depends on the intelligence of the American electorate, but that's a subject for another time.

---

[1] There are, of course, arguments against IQ tests, asserting that they are inherently biased, inaccurate, and meaningless.  There are also arguments against evolution and for creationism.  I suspect that there is a correlation somewhere.

Fatherhood – My reason to blog

This past October, 2011, I became a father for the first time when my wife delivered our baby girl.*  Not unusual at all since babies are born every day.  However, when our daughter was born, I was sixty-five years old.  (My wife is obviously much younger than I am.)

I have been around newborns, infants and toddlers a few times in my life but never out of necessity.  This time it was required and I have been with my daughter every day. I've witnessed the small and subtle changes in her development as she masters the skills of head and neck stability, holding her back straight, grasping, vocalizing, unsupported sitting, crawling and many other developments that I'm sure are too subtle to notice yet.

The day that we brought her home was the first time in my life that I changed a diaper.  It is not a difficult task to master, basically mechanical movements that ensure that the bum is clean, dry, and powdered; the diaper is securely but not too tightly attached; and the baby is smiling when it's all over.  That last part is not  always easy to accomplish – and doesn't always happen – but we talk to her and follow her progress in vocalization and ask her questions to assess her curiosity and responses.

Like most parents, we have high hopes and great aspirations for our daughter.  She will be tall, no doubt, placing in the 90-95%ile so far; slim, placing in the 50%ile; and with eyes which color has settled on bright blue with a dark blue outline. 

She is the main reason I started this blog.  I have learned a few things during my life and I want to pass them on to her. Still, I want to include input from others so that she has, not only my view, but those of other people with diverse backgrounds, perspectives and philosophies.

* I am lead to believe that I have a child, born in 1968 in northern Japan in Aomori Prefecture, but have not been able to confirm that.  It's a long story.

Why blog? 2.0

(This is a continuation of my 5/24/12 post below)

Well ... the e-sphere offers much more than a method to conveniently order products online; rapidly research a Kia's fuel sender unit and other innumerable bits of information; and assertion of political, religious, commercial, and social agenda.  It offers an opportunity to share views across cultures, scientific disciplines, religions, social strata, and countless other perceived barriers.  Of course, this is only true if we are willing to maintain duplex communications, i.e. speak and listen or, more accurately in this case, write and read.

Human society has evolved, through tens of thousands of years, into its current format of parochial, self-serving, defensive enclaves, i.e. countries, nations, states, cultures, religions, political affiliations, etc.  The reason, irrelevant now, can be summed up in three words – prehistoric human nature, but that is not justification for its continuation into what we generally – and charmingly – refer to as modern times.  Those enclaves will continue to exist as long as their leaders are given the power to sponsor and promote the differences that define them. 

The e-sphere – the internet, the web, blogosphere, email and the electronic matrix that supports and flows from it – provides an opportunity for rational individuals the world over to understand all other rational individuals the world over – through personal blogs.  Granted, there will always be those individuals who will stick to their views regardless of rational discourse and the opportunity to learn from and about others. However, those are not rational individuals and, if they blog, their site is not personal; rather, it is an interest blog, a site that perpetuates a self-serving view, a rigid perspective, a conclusion prior to evidence.

That is the reason to blog – to put forth into the e-sphere rational thought, civil discourse, and differing views.  As the strongest metals rely on mixtures with other metals and chemicals, e.g. chromium-nickel-copper stainless steel, the strongest philosophies, thoughts, and perspectives will rely on hybridization and input from many sources rather than a single, inbred source.

Why Blog? 1.0

Why blog?  Hmm ... good question.  What causes people to start a blog?  After all, there are roughly as many English-language blogs as there are drops of water in a backyard, 6,000 gallon, above-ground swimming pool[1].

It seems there are three types of blogs[2]: 1) personal blogs, 2) interest blogs, and 3) commercial blogs.  The number of blog sites has been increasing at astonishing rates[3] since software applications designed specifically for the format were developed in the late 1990's[4].

As of this writing, May, 2012, there are estimated to be 450 million English-oriented blogs[5], up from an estimated 200 million blogs in 2009[6].   Including non-English-oriented blogs, the number is estimated to be one billion blog sites[7].

Commercial blogs are, of course, designed to promote products and/or services, essentially extensions of a company's advertising and marketing efforts, albeit at much lower costs than traditional advertising.

Interest sites are those that highlight a specific focus of a group, e.g. political, religious, social, environmental, etc.  Essentially advertising for that group's interests – as opposed to products or services – they still are designed to have others 'buy into' the perspective or hype of the group.  No different than company-oriented blogs, they are essentially selling an idea, an ideal, a perspective.

Personal blogs are a different story.  It is easy to argue that personal blogs also assert specific views of the author and, in very loose interpretation, therefore attempt to 'sell' a view.  However, a personal blogger who does not also expect to learn – not just receive feedback – from interaction with others falls out of the personal blog into the interest blog, simply representing a group of one. 

With no well defined assessment available, it is virtually impossible to determine the number of blogs of each type; however, many blogs are abandoned and many others lay dormant long enough to render them irrelevant.  Therefore, the blogosphere is not as large and pervasive as the numbers imply.

I repeat ... why blog?

[1]  Assuming the scientific standard of twenty drops of water per milliliter

[2]  http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2011/01/too-many-blogs/

[3]  http://techliberation.com/2008/05/06/need-help-how-many-blogs-are-there-out-there/

[4]  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog

[5]  http://www.hattrickassociates.com/2010/02/how_many_blogs_2011_web_content/

[6]  ibid

[7]  ibid

Literary Tics

After finishing the first draft of my novel several months ago, and excited about the accomplishment, I soon began editing the second draft.  After the first few pages, I recognized patterns in my writing that I termed "literary tics". The tics were repetitive use of words with which I felt comfortable and which I thought conveyed the scene I saw in my mind as I was writing.  In fact, they did convey the scene; however, in that first draft, I had not considered the impact of repetition of those words on the reader.  Examples of the words are as, just, down, and up. Use of these words is not a tic, of course, but the overuse of them is.

I used the word, as, repeatedly when other words such as when or while would have applied equally well. Again, there is nothing inherently wrong with the word, as, only in the frequency with which I used it.  The phrase, "As I looked at Momma ...", can be replaced with, "When I looked at Momma ...", with little, if any, change in the connotation.  Of course, the risk then becomes overusing the word, when, a possibility that is easily addressed with balanced use of all words at the writer's disposal.

Likewise, I used the word, just, many times when it was just not needed (like that). For example, in the phrases, "He was just sitting there or "She just didn't know the stranger," the word doesn't add anything of substance to the statements. However, in some cases in narrative and, especially, in dialogue, the word carries a different connotation and is warranted. For instance, there is a difference between, "Carol, I don't know" and "Carol, I just don't know" in dialogue, the first imparting fact, the second perhaps frustration.

Another literary tic of which I was guilty is the use of up and down. For instance, when the setting is described as a woman standing and her son sitting to her side, there is no reason to write, "He turned and looked up at her." The word, up, is not needed and the same is true for the word, down, in similar situations.

I am sure that experienced writers are not afflicted with literary tics to the extent that beginning writers are, although they may have been as beginners. The goal, of course, is to identify and prevent them, thereby making writing more efficient and effective.  The good news is that repetition of words is easy to highlight with modern word processors.  They can be reviewed and changed during the edit. 

Other literary tics may include routinely, but inadvertently, changing POV; verb tense mismatches; and habitual use of non-standard punctuation.  In any case, taking care of these "literary tics" allowed me to also review surrounding material while editing.  In addition, getting the literary garbage out of the way allows me to concentrate on style, POV, show-not-tell considerations, etc.  It is rather like cleaning the dust and dirt off a vintage car to determine the work needed to restore it to a polished finish.

The Maple and Miss Red

I sat down slowly in the porch several mornings ago with my first cup of coffee and soon heard a familiar tat-tat-tat outside.  Not far from the porch was a female red-bellied woodpecker drilling into a heavy, dead branch on a dying maple.

As she relentlessly struck the limb in beats of three, slivers and shavings of wood floated to the ground, fifteen feet below.  I wondered how long she could strike her head against the wood, presumably without her first cup of coffee.

Sluggishly, I began to realize that Miss Red's struggle to survive was a fitting metaphor for the writing process.  Compelled by instinct beyond my ken, she was certain that a tasty bug was escaping the overnight cold within relative warmth inside the decomposing flesh of the dead branch.  She was determined to reach the morsel in the same way that we sense a good story within an inspiration and strive to reveal it.  Much the same as she repeated her tat-tat-tat on the wood, writers tap-tap-tap on a keyboard, trying to uncover the story within.

Miss Red was mulish in her labor, much as a writer must be tenacious to coax a story from words.  Without her drive she will starve, certainly with the specter of winter literally on the horizon.  In some cases, litterateurs face the same future although it can be worse – the unfulfilled need for self-expression.  Of course, even as there may be no reward for the woodpecker's work, the same may be true for the writer.  But, any woodpecker or scribe worth their salt wouldn't let that stop them.

As she worked, Miss Red was unconcerned about the debris that fell to earth.  They were bits of wood, obstacles in her way much as many words are in the way of writers, words that must be cast aside during editing to reveal the meat of the story. 

If her concentration was interrupted by someone slurping coffee or my wife's footsteps, the bird stopped momentarily, but always returned to her work.  In the same way, we may find our efforts interrupted by the cry of a baby, an important phone call, or the call of nature.  The dedicated will return to the task at hand as quickly as possible and continue chipping away at the wordy wood.

In fact, the hundred-plus-year-old maple itself is a metaphor for the art of letters.  The farthest reaches of its root system represent the beginnings with The Epic of Gilgamesh, if not stories told in pictographs on cave walls.  The trunk, main branches, water sprouts, and limbs represent the styles of fiction and nonfiction through millennia of human history, snaking off in different directions as the human imagination strives to explore all forms of written expression.  Even its leaves, returning each year in similar but different arrangements and colors, symbolize the literature styles of the day.

As I saw her struggle to survive as a metaphor for writing, I wondered if Miss Red sees writing as a metaphor for her struggle to survive.  I think we both shall miss that maple.

The Screenplay's the Thing

"The play's the thing."  So said Will Shakespeare through his character, Prince Hamlet.  That line has been cited countless times by writers, philosophers, social media pundits – even scientists and economists.  The context varies, of course, depending on the purpose and perspective of the user.  I recently conceived of a new – for me – context and use for the line, i.e., to highlight the ultimate purpose of fiction writing, and by inference, the role of the writer with respect to the reader.

The novelist's goal, as well as the short story writer's and poet's goal, is to use words to transfix and transport a reader's mind to a scene, to action, to dialogue.  More importantly, the goal is also to keep the reader's mind in place – bonded to the scene – and pursue the journey that the writer has laid out.

I recently reread a short story, Proof of the Pudding, by William Sydney Porter, also known as O. Henry.  A Mr. Westbrook, editor of Minerva Magazine, chances upon one Shackleford Dawe, a once successful but now failing writer for Westbrook's magazine, among others.  We learn that Westbrook's main objection to Dawe's writing lies in the author's use of common, ordinary dialogue in response to a dramatic event.  Dawe argues that his writing is consistent with human behavior whereas Westbrook argues for more dramatic responses, reminding me of Shakespeare's works.  Dawe responds to Westbrook's argument, claiming, "Not in a six hundred night's run anywhere but on the stage." Interestingly, they both seem to view a work of fiction like a script for a play. 

To be expected of O. Henry, Westbrook and Dawe, discovering in the same letter that their wives left them to pursue better lives, respond in manners exactly contrary to their staunchly held positions.  My intent is not to argue for either position.  Rather, the story pointed out to me that a novel or short story can be much like a screenplay, wherein the writer can evoke, in the reader, all the senses employed in film through skillful – and practiced – word choice.  A film or a novel can embody captivating action or poignant stillness, vivid sound or momentous silence, and the illusions of hideous or appetizing tastes, tactile sensations of luxurious suede or asphalt, and the strength of a pleasant perfume or revolting stench.

For me, what is new, if not news, is the concept of a novel played out on a soundstage inside the reader's mind.  By viewing a novel  as a movie, the writer, similar to a film's screenwriter, producer, and director, can bind the reader's mind to the moment, like the effect of a good movie on a viewer.  Choosing a film as a writer's perspective instead of a stage play has the advantages of grander special effects, and breadth of scenery selection and dialogue, relative to a play.  In any event, like Westbrook and Dawe intimate, the screenplay's the thing, in the form of a novel, that will hopefully fill a reader's mind with the story that is in the writer's mind.